Key objections against this planning application:
1. Loss of Family Housing and Harm to Housing Mix.
The proposed change of use would result in the loss of a family
dwelling within a predominantly residential street that has always
been and should continue to be about single persons/small family
homes. The proximity to schools and Ruislip High St means it is
ideal for this type of occupation. The proposed change conflicts
with the objectives of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2, including
policies DMH 1 and DMH 4, which seek to protect the borough’s
stock of family housing and maintain a balanced and sustainable
housing mix.
The cumulative erosion of family housing through piecemeal HMO
conversions is a matter the Council has explicitly sought to
control through the introduction of the borough-wide Article 4
Direction, recognising the potential harm to residential
communities.
2. Impact on Residential Character and Street Scene
Herlwyn Avenue is characterised by low-density family housing with
a consistent residential character. The proposed intensification of
use would alter the character of the property and the wider street,
contrary to Local Plan policies which seek to preserve the
character of residential areas.
Hillingdon has previously resisted developments that introduce
forms of occupation which are out of keeping with the established
character of an area, particularly where the use intensification is
not adequately justified.
3. Parking Stress and Highway Safety
The proposal fails to demonstrate how the additional occupiers
associated with a six-person HMO would be accommodated without
exacerbating existing on-street parking pressure.
Herlwyn Avenue leads to a primary school and already experiences
parking stress. The intensification of use would likely lead to
additional vehicles, adversely affecting highway safety, access for
emergency and refuse vehicles, and the amenity of existing
residents. This is contrary to the Local Plan’s transport and
parking objectives, which require developments to avoid
unacceptable impacts on highway safety.
4. Impact on Residential Amenity
HMOs typically generate higher levels of comings and goings, noise,
and general activity compared with single-family dwellings. The
proposal would introduce a level of activity that is incompatible
with the quiet residential nature of the area, resulting in harm to
the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers through noise and
disturbance.
The Council’s own evidence base supporting the Article 4
Direction acknowledges the correlation between HMOs and increased
amenity pressures in residential streets, which is a relevant
consideration in assessing this application.
5. Lack of Justification and Failure to Demonstrate No
Harm
Given the Article 4 Direction, the bonus is on the applicant to
demonstrate that the proposed HMO would not result in harm to
residential amenity, character, parking conditions, or housing
balance. In my view, the application fails to provide sufficient
evidence to demonstrate that these harms would be avoided or
adequately mitigated.
6. Stretched Facilities
This property has always been a two-bedroom bungalow with one
single bathroom. Increasing the use of facilities such as sewage
water to 6 bathrooms used concomitantly by 6 adults is above and
beyond the original design. It is likely to result in issues to
neighbouring properties sharing facilities that can affect their
health and safety.
7. False statements in the application
This application states that works have not started and also that
these will commence in February 2026. However, works started on the
12th November 2025 with builders living inside the house and were
ongoing until 12th December 2025. The rear extension and loft
conversion are already built. Accordingly, the applicant is openly
providing false statements to the council and their residents, not
only undermining the application itself but any HMO management
plan, which is a known issue in current HMOs in the council and
elsewhere in the UK.
8. Unlawful roof conversion, party wall agreement and tree
cut
The roof conversion is already built so it is current unlawful. It
has not been approved for permitted development as it does not hold
a Lawful Development Certificate. In addition, the works entail the
removal of a chimney breast requiring a party wall agreement that
was never offered to the relevant neighbour. During this unlawful
works the adjacent property was damaged and complains have not
resulted yet in any repairs being offered yet. Additionally, a tree
with the trunk sitting on the boundary with a neighbour, hence with
joint ownership, has been cut without permission which is a
criminal offence. Further, all these actions combined give clear
evidence that the applicants are incapable to manage a HMO with
minimal standards.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, the proposal conflicts with the
Hillingdon Local Plan, the intent of the Article 4 Direction, and
established planning precedent within the borough. The development
would result in demonstrable harm to residential character,
amenity, parking conditions, and the supply of family housing. I
therefore respectfully request that the Council refuse planning
permission for application 19188/APP/2025/3239.
On reaching 20 signatures it may be considered in conjunction with the relevant live planning application at an upcoming Committee meeting. The Council's Democratic Services Team will be in touch with the lead petitioner to advise and take this petition forward accordingly.
This ePetition runs from 12/01/2026 to 12/02/2026.
264 people have signed this ePetition.